Actually, a book that is compiled of many books is probably the best way to do it. It keeps every generation reading it and believing.

Well, actually the best way to do it would be to provide clear information that matched reality well enough to be believable. If the biblical stories matched biological discoveries, geological discoveries, astronomical discoveries, historical discoveries and other research findings (even if it was not very detailed), and if the bible could explain why just one group got the info and if the bible could avoid wild-assed claims about the salt lady and walking on water and rising from the dead, and if the bible could explain why the such high expectations were put on the first two humans and stuff like that, then it would be far better than the mish-mash that is whatever version of the christian bible you happen to like. Just the fact that there are multiple versions should be enough to give you pause. Not to mention the tens of thousands of different versions of christianity, which one would not expect accurate information to create.

Logged

Anyone can beat around the bush. But unless you have permission from the bush, you probably shouldn't.

Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

Actually, a book that is compiled of many books is probably the best way to do it. It keeps every generation reading it and believing.

No it isn't. That's probably one of the stupidest ways.

Much more straightforward would be the ability for all humans to innately sense god, much like the way you can close your eyes on a clear day and still know where the sun is. Everybody, not just people in in a small mostly desert region on one part of the planet. God should be knowable, findable and provable.

Heck, ancient sun worshippers had more proof of god than you do.

Easily debunked fiction does not qualify as the best way to show divinity.

Logged

Give a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a night. Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Is it possible to design a better mousetrap? A more complex one, with extra parts? Sure.The argument behind irreducible complexity however is shown to be a failure.

One of the dumb-arsed assumptions of the mousetrap non-game, (that atheists weren't supposed play), is that a mousetrap would evolve by itself. It's supposed to be an argument that an eye could not evolve, and yet we don't see eyes evolving by themselves and lying around in the environment.

Yes, if an eye evolved by itself, and we saw eyes everywhere, looking at things, without being able to eat, or have any reason to exist, then yes, that would be evidence of irreducible complexity.

To be fair, this is how a lot of Christians feel about atheists when atheists quote the Bible.

To us, it sounds like they know nothing of Christianity.

That's why I say, "impasse."

I don't want to get into a debate about how well I know the Bible, but I guess what you are saying is that I know the Bible well enough to know it is crap, and I don't want to study it the way you have. This is what you feel about evolution, so you make no attempt to learn about it. That is actually the way I felt about the subject of Economics, at school. I was fine until they starting using graphs, to show supply and demand, and pretending that people could be mathematically modelled. At that point, I could learn no more about economics.

You have introduced a false dichotomy. If I become suddenly being skeptical of evolution, it does not mean that I would start to take literal Christianity seriously, any more than the Quran, or Bramivishnavedas. Millions of Christians can believe in Jesus, and still believe in evolution, and see a powerful god, who uses evolution. It is not black and white.

The reason you have introduced this false dichotomy, is that if you realized that the the world was 4 billion years old, then your faith would fall apart. Whereas, if I were a Hindu, that would confirm my faith. For you, seeing anything outside what you want to see, is death to your belief.

When an atheist sees something outside his beliefs, it is interesting, because it might lead to some truth, if you can get to the bottom of it.

One of the dumb-arsed assumptions of the mousetrap non-game, (that atheists weren't supposed play), is that a mousetrap would evolve by itself. It's supposed to be an argument that an eye could not evolve, and yet we don't see eyes evolving by themselves and lying around in the environment.

Yes, if an eye evolved by itself, and we saw eyes everywhere, looking at things, without being able to eat, or have any reason to exist, then yes, that would be evidence of irreducible complexity.

It is quite silly to think that an eye could evolve on its own. Without even one piece developing, the eye wouldn't work. It would be useless while evolving in previous generations and they would die out and we would find their fossils. Yet, we don't find their fossils.

One of the dumb-arsed assumptions of the mousetrap non-game, (that atheists weren't supposed play), is that a mousetrap would evolve by itself. It's supposed to be an argument that an eye could not evolve, and yet we don't see eyes evolving by themselves and lying around in the environment.

Yes, if an eye evolved by itself, and we saw eyes everywhere, looking at things, without being able to eat, or have any reason to exist, then yes, that would be evidence of irreducible complexity.

It is quite silly to think that an eye could evolve on its own. Without even one piece developing, the eye wouldn't work. It would be useless while evolving in previous generations and they would die out and we would find their fossils. Yet, we don't find their fossils.

Such a shame that kids in schools back then were being taught the "absolute truth" that Orta Benga was a monkey. They probably got a big fat red X on their paper if they classified Orta Benga as a human. I feel sorry for him being paraded around like an animal.

Wonder why they don't teach this to kids in the textbooks today. Kinda makes you wonder what science is trying to hide from us and why they are afraid of their past. The lengths they go to in order to try and prove their wild theory is quite interesting.

Such a shame that kids in schools back then were being taught the "absolute truth" that Orta Benga was a monkey. They probably got a big fat red X on their paper if they classified Orta Benga as a human. I feel sorry for him being paraded around like an animal.

Wonder why they don't teach this to kids in the textbooks today. Kinda makes you wonder what science is trying to hide from us and why they are afraid of their past. The lengths they go to in order to try and prove their wild theory is quite interesting.

Science isn't perfect, and never claims to be, it's a self correcting process based on peer review. It's extremely unfortunate that he was classified as a monkey rather than a human, but our knowledge back then was extremely limited, remember that the DNA structure wasn't discovered until well after that.

Science isn't perfect, and never claims to be, it's a self correcting process based on peer review. It's extremely unfortunate that he was classified as a monkey rather than a human, but our knowledge back then was extremely limited, remember that the DNA structure wasn't discovered until well after that.

That's why they shouldn't go around proclaiming the fact of evolution, considering our knowledge is rather limited compared to 100 years from now.

Just think in 100 years, they may laugh at people who thought evolution was true.

Logged

Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Science isn't perfect, and never claims to be, it's a self correcting process based on peer review. It's extremely unfortunate that he was classified as a monkey rather than a human, but our knowledge back then was extremely limited, remember that the DNA structure wasn't discovered until well after that.

That's why they shouldn't go around proclaiming the fact of evolution, considering our knowledge is rather limited compared to 100 years from now.

Just think in 100 years, they may laugh at people who thought evolution was true.

That would take one massive piece of evidence (Like a poodle with a T-Rex) to knock the MOST substantiated scientific theory in the history of science, so i'm not going to hold my breath.

I mean, why the fuck would a mousetrap even bother to catch mice? It can't eat them.

Doesn't have to. For the irreducible complexity argument to work, the device/organ must exist with all of it's parts or none.Since it's obvious that the mousetrap can exist in many, many forms, and with an astonishingly small number of parts the argument fails.

It's astounding that anybody still bothers to use that stupid strawman any more. Well, the ignorant I suppose.

Logged

Give a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a night. Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

I mean, why the fuck would a mousetrap even bother to catch mice? It can't eat them.

Doesn't have to. For the irreducible complexity argument to work, the device/organ must exist with all of it's parts or none.Since it's obvious that the mousetrap can exist in many, many forms, and with an astonishingly small number of parts the argument fails.

It's astounding that anybody still bothers to use that stupid strawman any more. Well, the ignorant I suppose.

You fail to understand the point. It's either a mousetrap, or it's not. If you want to use a mousetrap and only have a wooden board, you'll be catchin' a whole lot of nothin'.

Logged

Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

That would take one massive piece of evidence (Like a poodle with a T-Rex) to knock the MOST substantiated scientific theory in the history of science, so i'm not going to hold my breath.

There's a lot of space on this Earth to start digging for that poodle. Maybe they shouldn't assume that T-Rex and poodle lived far apart from each other.

Except for the fact that evolutionary biologists can accurately predict exactly where to go to find a specific type of fossil, based on the estimated time it lived, the type of environment it lived in, as well as several other factors. They were able to accurately predict where they would find Tiktaalik, and creationists are still parroting the same non-argument.